Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas at Louisville

Fortunately or unfortunately, semantics and interpretation play a large role in discussions here. What it eventually boils down to is one person s opinion

Message 1 of 69
, Aug 1, 2001

0 Attachment

Fortunately or unfortunately, semantics and interpretation play a large role in
discussions here. What it eventually boils down to is one person's opinion
based on his/her interpretation of how certain facts are presented. Some may
agree with each other, some may not.

We still don't know what the meaning of the "suspended" order is/was or how to
interpret it. But it was "suspended", at least according to the OR.

| --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
| > Dave,
| >
| > I didn't write that you said that Thomas "refused to follow an
| > order." I did used the word "refusing" to characterize the word
| > you first used "declined." In my dictionary, "refuse" is the first
| > synonym given for "decline." I'm sorry if you think that the
| > meaning of "decline" isn't close enough to that of "refuse."
|
| In my Webster's Seventh (Brown University edition) the only synonyms
| listed are renounce, reject, and deny.
|
| All are a lot more positive than "decline."
|
| Sigh.
|
| You said:
|
| > I'm pretty surprised by your opinion.
|
| What follows would, I assume, be your interpretation of what I'd
| previously said.
|
| This was Joe:
| > I think that the difference between refusing to follow an order and
| > requesting that an order--which would redound to one's own benefit--
| > be dismissed is big enough to drive a truck through.
|
| Now, I think, and may be wrong, but the only difference between the
| two is "refusing to follow an order," a (which is it?) present tense
| expression, and "refused to follow an order," which reflects a past
| tense. Now, I think, in your expression, you were speaking of Thomas
| (a pretty reasonable assumption in these here parts), and I was, so
| aren't the two the same?
|
| You said that I said Thomas refused an order. I did not.
|
| Unlike some other posters, who see Thomas's declination as some form
| of disobedience, I don't see it that way. Washington, for whatever
| reason, saw fit to accept it (which will have its various
| interpretations, pro-Thomas and con-Thomas), and not try to enforce
| it on him again.
|
| ObCivilWarWest: I can only conclude that given the obvious
| dissatisfaction on the part of Halleck with Buell's performance (he
| even told H.G. Wright in Cincinnati that the whole command would go
| to the first major general to do something positive), this refusal,
| declination, hesitation, or whatever you want to call it on the part
| of George Thomas did not help further his career.
|
| We shan't discuss semantics any more, but if you want to discuss the
| effect that Thomas's turning down of the command had on his further
| career, I'll be glad to discuss it further.
|
| Dave
|
| Dave Smith
| Villa Hills, KY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|

Bob Huddleston

The first chapter ( article ) of the Civil War Army Regulations: ARTICLE I. MILITARY DISCIPLINE. 1. All inferiors are required to obey strictly, and to

Message 69 of 69
, Aug 4, 2001

0 Attachment

The first chapter ("article") of the Civil War Army Regulations:

"ARTICLE I.

MILITARY DISCIPLINE.

1. All inferiors are required to obey strictly, and to execute with
alacrity and good faith, the lawful orders of the superiors appointed
over them."

There is nothing wrong about raising some questions about an order --
which Thomas did. But when the order is given, an officer (whether in
1862 or 2001) is to obey the order. When CW generals turned down orders
to take command, the War Department respected and accepted those
refusals: an unwilling commander is likely to be worse than an
incompetent one.

In Thomas' case(s), when offered army or independent command, he
consistently turned the offer down (until Chattanooga). To me -- and I
imagine to Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Stanton and Gen. Halleck -- that is the same
as telling your superior that you have no desire for such a position.